Magistrates Decision
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:27 pm
I happened to be over hear an interesting ruling from a local magistrate and thought i would share it with you all.
I think the court session resulted in an interesting decision by the magistrate in regards to a topic that many people on this forum have regularly commented on and campaign for.............better driver training!
Let me paint a picture........
A young woman (19 years of age) is appearing infront of the Magistrates Court answering to a charge of careless driving causing serious injury.
Summary of the accident tells a story of how the young woman was travelling down a local road in the country when for no reason other than inexperiance she lost control of her car when pulling too far into the gravel to avoid being too close to an oncoming vehicle. No she wasn't distracted by her mobile phone, investigations proved no incoming/out going messages or texts.
She hit the dirt and lost control, over corrected, resulting in a head-on collision with the car she was trying to avoid causing serious injuries to both herself and the driver of the other vehicle. Various broken limbs and other injuries were listed as a result.
It was always clear this young woman was no run of the mill hoon. She was obviously upset by the whole event and distressed while at court and had taken full responsability for the accident agreeing to plead guilty.
The first thing the Magistrate asked before he delivered his ruling was "in the time between when the accident occured and the hearing today have you attended any defensive or advanced driving course?"
The answer was no. He went on to discuss how he believes that drivers end up on our roads nowdays unskilled and completely unprepared for the number of driving scenarios that await them. People recieve their full licence nowdays and they are almost incompetent to deal with day to day emergancy/evasive driving situations......................and its not their fault.
He continued by stating that while the government has made attempts to rectify the issue (I assume he is referring to the newly introduced minimum 120 hrs required on "L" platers") it is still an ongoing issue that needs far more attention than its currently getting.
The ruling, she was released on an undertaking (promise to the Magistrate) that she would attend a defencive driving course and then return to court afterwards to recieve the final ruling.
I think the court session resulted in an interesting decision by the magistrate in regards to a topic that many people on this forum have regularly commented on and campaign for.............better driver training!
Let me paint a picture........
A young woman (19 years of age) is appearing infront of the Magistrates Court answering to a charge of careless driving causing serious injury.
Summary of the accident tells a story of how the young woman was travelling down a local road in the country when for no reason other than inexperiance she lost control of her car when pulling too far into the gravel to avoid being too close to an oncoming vehicle. No she wasn't distracted by her mobile phone, investigations proved no incoming/out going messages or texts.
She hit the dirt and lost control, over corrected, resulting in a head-on collision with the car she was trying to avoid causing serious injuries to both herself and the driver of the other vehicle. Various broken limbs and other injuries were listed as a result.
It was always clear this young woman was no run of the mill hoon. She was obviously upset by the whole event and distressed while at court and had taken full responsability for the accident agreeing to plead guilty.
The first thing the Magistrate asked before he delivered his ruling was "in the time between when the accident occured and the hearing today have you attended any defensive or advanced driving course?"
The answer was no. He went on to discuss how he believes that drivers end up on our roads nowdays unskilled and completely unprepared for the number of driving scenarios that await them. People recieve their full licence nowdays and they are almost incompetent to deal with day to day emergancy/evasive driving situations......................and its not their fault.
He continued by stating that while the government has made attempts to rectify the issue (I assume he is referring to the newly introduced minimum 120 hrs required on "L" platers") it is still an ongoing issue that needs far more attention than its currently getting.
The ruling, she was released on an undertaking (promise to the Magistrate) that she would attend a defencive driving course and then return to court afterwards to recieve the final ruling.
even after years of "experience"....